Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tailwind UI

tailwindui.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 367 posts

Re: Tailwind UI

#111

Post by akie »

smnplk wrote: post #105
andrei_says_ wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My sense is this is for people who do not know css to the level needed to implement BEM. Also, it replaces the cost of knowing css and naming things (class names) with the cost of learning the tailwindcss classes. I will stick to BEM + colors and sizes maps because this feels almost like using the style tag on each element. For non-css expert engineers writing spa components, tailwind can be useful. I can also see th…

what is BEM?

Block-Element-Modifier, a way to structure your CSS. http://getbem.com/

Re: Tailwind UI

#112

Post by have_faith »

mattferderer wrote: post #97
have_faith wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to require so much CSS knowledge that you might as well just use regular class names and write the CSS components yourself as it requires you to understand how flexbox etc works anyway to use it's utility classes properly.

You're right. Don't use Tailwind if you don't know CSS well. The use case is for creating Template Components with something like React, Vue, Hugo, Razor or another component template framework. Tailwind offers a large list of customizable variables to use to help keep your CSS consistent. You're still pretty much writing CSS though, just with shortcuts. I consider it Emmet CSS + Variables. I also highly suggest usin…

I thought the anti-css crowd who use React etc generally preferred some form of Styled Components where the style is written in JS? It's a mixed up world of factions :)

Whether building a regular website or a web-app I generally just use component names (like .card) the same way. I'm more of a fan of defined components with limited variations though than people being able to change anything with a lot of utility classes. Sort of like having a succinct API with a constrained depth. I see css as an api to the original designs and Tailwind introduces too much freedom for my comfort! I will endeavour to give it an honest trial though and maybe I will meet you somewhere in the middle.

Re: Tailwind UI

#113

Post by csande17 »

Nullabillity wrote: post #75
larrywright wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you truly know assembler, C/Python/Ruby/Go is a waste of time. See how dumb that sounds?

Following that analogy, Tailwind is C files that only contain inline assembler blocks. Yes, you can check off on your list that you no longer have any .S files. But did you actually gain anything?

I can see it now:

> Most C libraries do too much.

> They come with all sorts of predesigned components like functions and structs that might help you move quickly at first, but cause more pain than they cure when it comes time to make your program stand out with custom behavior.

> Tailwind C is different.

> Instead of opinionated predesigned components, Tailwind provides low-level utility macros that let you build completely custom functionality:

    void main() {
        BEGIN_TAILWINDC
        MOV(RAX, 4);
        MOV(RDI, 1);
        MOV(RSI, "Hello world!\n");
        MOV(RDX, 13);
        INTERRUPT(128);
        END_TAILWINDC
    }
And then every Hacker News discussion of Tailwind C would inevitably include a link to their "Why using Tailwind C is definitely not just as bad as writing inline assembler" documentation page.

Ooh, and then the creator of Tailwind C would start selling the Tailwind C Library, with like an implementation of memcpy that you just cut-and-paste into your program every time you need to copy memory.

Re: Tailwind UI

#114

Post by bredren »

atonse wrote: post #5

It's really nice, but is there something this pretty for bootstrap? I literally manage something like 10 different products/websites. And the only way to stay sane and have some pace with features is to use bootstrap for all of them (we currently use bootstrap for maybe 5 of them, and the rest were inherited sites that we're migrating). I love the look of this but don't have the time or the will to migrate all our si…

There are many bootstrap themes that offer re-usable components. They are cheap and some are expertly maintained. Look into Color Admin by Sean Ngu.

Re: Tailwind UI

#115

Post by reaperducer »

pcurve wrote: post #36

On the surface, the markup is pretty damn awful. But if you reach certain level of proficiency, this will definitely speed up development. Back End Developer Personally I would prefer Bootstrap over this approach.

It's as if one person was arguing for hard-line separation of style and content, and another person was arguing that in-line is the way to go, and then Tailwind came along and said, "Why not both?"

So now it's the worst of both worlds: an abstraction layer and dirty code.

Re: Tailwind UI

#116

Post by [deleted] »

iKlsR wrote: post #84
newfeatureok wrote: post #71

The problem with this IMO is that some enterprising person will just use regular tailwind (or another utility-css framework like tachyons) and re-implement all of these components and give it out for free, circumventing the license and killing the value of this. Normally with themes it would be time prohibitive to do so, but the nature of utility-css is that it's relatively straightforward to implement each component…

See https://tailwind.build for something that already exists and knowing the community that surrounds this, he will more than make a good return off it so no worries there for the work that has gone into it. ie. https://adamwathan.me/the-book-launch-that-let-me-quit-my-jo...

[deleted]

Re: Tailwind UI

#117

Post by wolco »

have_faith wrote: post #68
mattferderer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite the opposite. It's a nice set of CSS variables. It still relies on much more CSS knowledge than a framework like Bootstrap. CSS frameworks are great because there is a flavor that should fit just about anyone.

It seems to require so much CSS knowledge that you might as well just use regular class names and write the CSS components yourself as it requires you to understand how flexbox etc works anyway to use it's utility classes properly.

This is where I ended up with this framework. It requires so much css knowledge that it is for the advanced but not expert who would be bothered by a number of things.

Re: Tailwind UI

#118

Post by httgp »

dinkleberg wrote: post #69
sandGorgon wrote: post #53

so the problem is that this is priced too high. Its not about free, but the real pricing market now is themeforest. For example - http://landrick.react.themesbrand.com/ is 17$. https://g-axon.com/wieldy-ant-design-react-redux-admin-templ... is 24$ (which uses ant design)

Tailwind UI is not a theme, it's a component library. The target audience is different. I bought this the moment I got the email about it this morning because this is going to help my productivity in building web applications. When you use Tailwind, you aren't using a pre-made theme as you would with a bootstrap theme you buy, you are designing it from scratch. With this UI kit you'll get some nice building blocks to…

Spot on; you get a design system from day 1!

Re: Tailwind UI

#120

Post by Tade0 »

efdee wrote: post #33

Judging from all the positive comments in this thread, clearly I must be missing something. This looks horrible to me. Instead of meaningful CSS classes you just get a bunch of small classes that do very small things, which you're supposed to combine until it looks like what you want. How is that better than writing your CSS manually? (Again, I realise the failure is probably on me. But I don't get it.)

How is that better than writing your CSS manually?

My take is that it's not. It's just a convenient shortcut for those who aren't well versed in CSS.

I see what kind of problem they're trying to solve, but I think it collapses under its own weight the same as complete, closed components do - just later into the project.

Post reply on HN